Time to End the Jacko Trial

Fox News ^ | 04/16/2005 | Roger Friedman

[MizSterious]

PS--some of us zealots also think Jackson is guilty as sin. I'm one of them.

[Peach]

And I apologize if some of my harsh language offfended some people. I do not care to have my positions mis-stated, but will try to temper my remarks when that happens.

[Delphinium]

making the most of a splintered woman.

Where are all the NOW women? On the perversion side ofcourse.

[CHARLITE]

"Where are all the NOW women? On the perversion side of course."

It's all part of that non-judgmental, libertine, "if it feels good, do it" liberal left secular philosophy. "Who are we to judge what Michael Jackson does "in the privacy of his own bedroom?!" That's where liberalism has gotten us.

[CHARLITE]

"I saw pundits the past two days applaud how she gave it right back to Jackson's silver haired attorney."

I'm of the opinion that journalists try to make it appear that there is "grave doubt" that a famous defendant will be convicted. The media wonks depend upon creating tension and uncertainty. If they all concluded that Tom Sneddon has this case in the bag, despite the mother's quirks, people wouldn't tune in. They would watch something else, feeling that the verdict is a foregone conclusion. So they have to "stoke the fire" just as they did with the Scott Peterson case.

For me, I'll repeat what I said yesterday (maybe on this thread): - that I trust Geoffrey Feiger's judgment. He cuts to the chase. He called the Peterson verdict from the outset of the trial, despite all of the hullaballou about how that prosecutor was "blowing the case." Geoff is doing the same thing here. He's convinced that Jackson is going to be convicted. I hope he's right. It's time that this creep was stopped in his perpetual molestation of young boys, behind the ultra-guarded walls of secrecy at "Neverland."

[Wolfstar]

You're welcome, Peach. Cafeteria-style moral outrage is sickening, in my opinion. While it's true that Jackson has not admitted to molesting boys, he's admitted to everything short of that. In addition, no one pays $20 million to buy off a boy and his family, as Jackson did 10 years ago, unless there's a good reason. That payoff is tantamount to an admission of guilt.

Unfortunately, our celebrity-besotted culture excuses almost any kind of behavior from sports and entertainment figures. So I expect Jacksont to be acquitted. He, of course, will take that as license to continue what he's been doing.

MizSterious, at least you appear to be consistent in the sense of morality you hold. Whether or not I may agree with you on a given issue or point, your consistency speaks well of you.

[MizSterious]

One commentator noted that the defense for almost all celebrity crimes is that the accuser is in it only for money. Following that reasoning, no wealthy or famous person is ever guilty. Yet, many in the media (especially the media, but others too) often spout just that--"oh, this mother's just after his money." In this case, the guy has said, on videotape shown all over the world, that he likes to sleep with young boys. Alas, it seems many mothers allow him to do just that.

[Wolfstar]

Following that reasoning, no wealthy or famous person is ever guilty.

Judging by the run of celebrity trials we've seen over the past decade or so, the wealthy or famous can do just about anything except lie to the feds. Martha Stewart did that and wound up in the slammer. What a screwed up society we have these days.

[plain talk]

Exactly. She's less nutty than Jacko IMO. Actually they should replace some of these snickering jurors.

[ColoCdn]

If you will take the time to investigate my threads, I have not only NEVER stated anything about my belief in Jackson's guilt or innocence, my posts have been about the inconsistency of posts that support MS (never charged IN LAW, as you so aptly point out) based on the COURT RECORD, versus the opprobrium directed against MJ based on MSM HEARSAY (because there is no full, adjudicated COURT RECORD as of yet).

If you want to try Michael Jackson in the court of public opinion, as you are obviously doing, fine. Just don't criticize people for trying Michael Schiavo in the same court you're using for Jackson.

That's called hypocrisy.